deadliestfictionfandomcom-20200214-history
User blog:Leolab/Policy Changes
Despite being... tricky about it, Hayden did have a point: certain parts of the policies need rewriting. The active Admins / Bureaus have agreed on what is here. Battle Policy (1) Rematches Section Proposed new wording: Rematches must be done with the original author's approval. If the author disapproves, then the rematch cannot happen, unless the user requesting the rematch can gain the publicly written support of at least three other users and at least two admins who support the cause of the rematch, which will override the disapproval of the author. If the original author has had his disapproval overridden, but still feels that a rematch should not be done, he is allowed to gain the publicly written support of other users against the rematch. The side with the highest number of supporters wins, with ties going to the original author. In the case of inactive or retired authors, the three supporters rule still applies, and an admin approval is needed as well. If at any point, even after a rematch is done, sockpuppets are found to have been used as supporters, the side using them automatically has their position revoked. If the rematch was already done and found to have been invalid, then the original outcome will be posted in the battle status and the section will have a notification that the rematch was considered void due to sockpuppetting for votes. END. (2) Voting Section For the Author Subsection Proposed new wording: Disregarding the valid votes of the audience toward a particular warrior is not allowed. The author of the battle will be issued a warning. After three warnings, the author is expected to follow the rules. However, if the author continues to disregard the votes, then he will be blocked for a month and will not be allowed to write a battle/blog post for two weeks after the block has been terminated. For battles that have ended in a tie, the author can: a.) Choose which warrior will be the victor b.) Extend the voting period c.) End the battle in a tie, so that both warriors are victors As the author, you are allowed to give yourself a vote if you like. However, if the battle ends in a tie along with your vote, you must end the battle in a tie, as choosing your preferred warrior under these circumstances would essentially be giving yourself two votes. The one and only exception to this is in a proper tournament, where there MUST be one victor, so the author is allowed to determine the outcome if there is a tie. END. (3) Voting Section For the Voter/Audience Subsection Proposed new wording: If you are going to vote, please use the voting method the author provides and states you should use. If voting in comments, please try to provide a good and strong reason why that warrior should win. This is highly recommended, especially for battles lacking a voting poll. Creating multiple accounts to vote for one warrior more than once in a battle, or "sock-puppeting" is strictly prohibited. Doing so once will result in all alternate accounts being permanently blocked, and the main user given a 45-day block. Twice will result in the same but with the main user being given a 100-day block. And after the third time, the sock-puppets, along with the sock-puppeteer, will be permanently blocked. Do not vote after a battle has been "dead", meaning no contributions after three or more weeks. This is considered spam (and is known as "resurrecting", "rezzing" or to "res") and the voter will be given a three-day ban. To avoid this, we recommend that users lock commenting in their battles after they are over. If this is not done, commenting will be locked after a user or anon resurrects the battle. New coding prevents this END. (4) Proposed new section: Battle Rewrite Proposed wording: If a user is satisfied with the outcome of a battle, but feels that the simulation was not up to a good standard, or that the battle lacks a simulation entirely, the user is allowed to rewrite the simulation provided the original author gives their permission. If the original author is inactive, the user must get the permission from at least two other administrators as well as the support of three other users to rewrite it. Removed due to new disagreement. END. (5) Proposed new section: Vote times Proposed wording: Users must have voting periods of a minimum of three days before closing their battles. END Article Policy (7) Not sure where this'll fit, so: Any reserved battles listed on battle status put up by users inactive for over three months can be removed at the discretion of the editor END. User Policy No changes END Chat Policy (5) Proposed New Section: Spam Proposed wording: Spamming is considered posting links, saying the same thing, speaking in all caps, or speaking in disjointed sentences* at least three times in a row or to the annoyance of other users. In a given chat session, the first spamming will be hit with a kicking. Any further spam will result in kicks or bans at the discretion of the chat mod enforcing the policy. For Admins, Bureaucrats, or Chat Mods doing the same, the first offense is a warning on public chat. Subsequent offenses will lead to removal of chat mod status at the discretion of a consensus of Bureaucrats. Afterwards, the demoted user is treated like a normal user who has had their first offense. *Disjointed sentences are as follows: ::Hey guys, I ::found ::this new ::battle; ::it looks ::intere ::sting etc. It could have been written as follows without a rule break: ::Hey guys, I found this new battle. ::It looks intere ::*interesting. END. (6) Proposed New Section: Chat Mods, Kicking, and Banning Proposed wording: (6a) Chat Mods Subsection Users should listen to chat mods. If any user is found breaking the rules, the chat mod has the right to kick or ban as the rule states, or if nothing is stated then it is at their discretion. Kicking may be done as a joke so long as the Chat Mod makes it completely clear to the kicked user that it is meant jokingly. Banning is not allowed as a joke. Any chat mods accused of abusing their power will be contacted by an admin or a bureaucrat. If the chat mod was found to be abusing their power, they will have their chat mod status revoked. Abuses of power include, but are not limited to: *Kicking or Banning for no reason *Kicking or banning a user for disagreeing with them *Repeatedly kicking a user (joke or not) *Banning a user the instant they appear on chat The one and only time a ban or a non-joke kick is allowed without the recipient having broken any rules is if they literally, in public chat, ask for it. (i.e., they write "Please ban me" or something to that effect) END 6a. (6b) Kicking Subsection A kick for a rule break should be taken as a warning, and should be the first punishment used unless the user has made an enormous violation. Since kicking can be undone by getting back on chat, kicking may be done as a joke so long as the Chat Mod makes it completely clear to the kicked user that it is meant jokingly. END 6b. (6c) Banning Subsection A user may be banned at the discretion of a chat moderator for excessively breaking rules. Banning may not be done as a joke. Unfair bans should be protested to an Admin / Bureaucrat directly. END 6c. END. (8) Language Limited cursing is allowed. Words like shit, damn, hell, bitch, and fuck are fine to use in limited quantities. Excessive use of curse words is grounds for a kick or a ban at the discretion of the chat mod. So, now that that's done: opinions? additions? Category:Blog posts